from the that's-how-its-done dept

If I had to choose one company as the antithesis to Ubisoft's boneheaded take on business, I would probably choose Stardock. Stardock is one of those companies that continues to do everything right while many other companies in the video game industry insist it is wrong. So, it really comes as no surprise that Stardock producer Jon Shafer wrote that respecting your fans should be one of the most important aspects of doing business. He makes four very good points in this essay that I think all entertainment companies can learn from.

First up, Jon speaks about the importance of demos to a project's success:

When you don't put out a demo, some people will start asking questions… is it because the game isn't any good and the developer is afraid people will find out? Did they run out of time and the lack of a demo is a sign that the game is sloppy and unfinished? You don't want players asking those questions -- you want them trying out your awesome game and telling everyone they know about it.

We have spoken numerous times about the importance of fans being able to sample entertainment before they buy. We have seen study after study that shows that those who have the ability to try things out before dropping money for it, are much more likely to not only buy, but buy more. Why would you deny your fans the ability to try out your game, music, book or movie? A nice demo can go a long way.

Next up, Jon shares some words about interacting with fans:

As developers working on the oft-mundane, daily tasks required in making a piece of software, we often lose sight of the fact that there are also many players who love our work. For them the opportunity to talk with someone that worked on their favorite game is incredibly exciting (something we are occasionally reminded of when we get to meet the creators of our favorite games!).

Ah. The old adage of connecting with fans. What this does is make sure that not only that the fans like your work, but that they also like you. We know that it is far easier for customers to buy something from a company or a person they actually like. The best way to gain that affection is to put yourself out there and communicate with your fans.

Then, Jon speaks about giving fans ownership:

Players like having ownership. It's one of the reasons why they're playing games (an active form of entertainment) rather than experiencing a self-contained work in another medium. The absolute best way to hand over the keys to your game is to make it moddable. Many of the most beloved and long-lasting games of all time are also highly moddable, and their communities live on long after the last official update. Why? Because the players took ownership and had a vested interest in the longevity and overall success of the game. This sort of relationship between player and game is only possible when the players have the power to reshape the game to their liking.

While modding itself is unique to gaming, the idea behind it is as old as recorded media. The idea behind modding is pretty close to that of remixing in other media. This desire to reshape and make our own the entertainment we consume is something that should be embraced by successful creators. Doing so not only gains you more fans, but also ensures that your work will live on in the hearts and minds of those who enjoy it.

Finally, Jon speaks on piracy:

Ah, the elephant in the room. I’ll just put it this way: if the CIA can get hacked, you’re not going to be able to prevent your game from being cracked. Sorry. You can't stop piracy. Focus on building up a fanbase and higher sales through goodwill instead of trying to bend the internet to your will. If you're spending a ton of effort trying to "win the war" on piracy, then you're wasting resources you could have been used to make better games. The reason why studios like Blizzard and Valve are so successful and beloved is because they focus on delivering the best games possible, time and money be damned. Don't make enemies of paying customers by making them jump through hoops. As history shows us, in most wars there are no winners -- only losers.

We are already well aware of Stardock's official position on piracy. It would rather maximize sales than waste resources fighting a losing battle. This is something that many people within the entertainment industry need to learn. Piracy is a symptom of far larger problems. By wasting time and money fighting it, you are shifting resources away from those areas that truly matter to the end consumer.

While these four points are nothing new to many of us here, they are things that too many still have not learned or refuse to recognize. It is time to stop the war on fans and begin to embrace them and their culture. Times are changing. People do not consume entertainment in the same ways they did ten years ago. Fans know what they like and know who provides it. Those who refuse to adapt are going to be left behind.

from the genetic-history?-really? dept

Ah, ownership society. We see this all the time with successful books, movies and TV shows -- where suddenly someone (generally a complete nobody) discovers that a popular media vehicle is based on a similar generic idea that they once wrote about too... and they insist that the successful work must be infringing. I guess we can add video games to that list as well. Ubisoft has apparently been sued by an author you've likely never heard of, John Beiswenger, who wrote some book whose premise has a vague similarity to the premise of Ubisoft's popular Assassin's Creed game. Both stories apparently involve genetic memory -- the idea that memories can be passed down from your ancestors.

But that seems to be about as far as the similarities go. One would have hoped that a lawyer would have explained to Beiswenger that copyright only covers specific expression, rather than generic idea, but apparently that didn't happen. Of course, as Julian Sanchez points out, the idea of "genetic memory" is such a common sci-fi trope that there's a whole page dedicated to listing out stories that use the concept -- many of which predate Beiswenger's book (and nearly all of which were significantly more successful). Don't expect this lawsuit to go very far.

from the of-things-to-come dept

When it comes to DRM, nothing is more annoying and hated than DRM that requires a constant internet connection. This DRM regularly pings a server controlled by the creator of the game in order to prove that you, the paying customer who paid money to buy the game, are not a dirty pirate. One of the loudest critiques of this type of DRM is what happens when the DRM cannot make the connection to the server. We have already seen what happens to Ubisoft games when there is an unexpected server crash. Gamers weren't too thrilled about that. Now we learn that Ubisoft is looking to give its paying customers another look into why such DRM systems are a real bad idea. Ubisoft will be taking its authentication servers down on Tuesday, February 7th for an unspecified amount of time.

While Ubisoft takes its servers down to migrate them, gamers who paid good money in order to play DRM'ed games will be unable to do so. What makes this worse is that all those pirates that this DRM was supposedly going to stop will be able to play those games all they want during the migration. This is the thanks that paying customers get. This is the thanks that fans that want to support Ubisoft in its PC gaming endeavors get for their loyalty. When it comes time for Ubisoft to go to bat for them, the fans get slapped in the face.

To top things off, Ubisoft seems to not be all that concerned with how this affects paying customers. In the announcement of the downtime, it states:

We apologize to our customers for the inconvenience. This move ultimately will help us improve the maintenance of our infrastructure and deliver better uptime and greatly improved services for our customers.

Hey, thanks for the sympathy. Unfortunately, Ubisoft has not apologized for the inconvenience of having to prove you are not a criminal every few seconds while playing legally purchased games. Too bad Ubisoft is not improving its services by not forcing paying customers to prove they are not dirty pirates. Ubisoft could really go above and beyond in thanking its customers but is instead continuing on the same path of DRM.

This server migration is merely an example of what happens when content creators rely on these types of DRM in their fight against piracy. This is a taste of what will happen when Ubisoft decides it is just not worth it to support these authentication servers any more. When these servers go dark permanently, all those paying customers will never legally be able to play their games again. Yet, the pirates will be able to continue playing as this DRM never stopped them to begin with.

from the digital-rights-mutilation dept

We all know Ubisoft. That company that seems to think that piracy is such a huge problem on the PC and that DRM is the only way to stop it -- even when fans complain about how horrible the DRM is. So it is really no surprise to find out that Ubisoft is still at it. It still thinks that annoying legitimate customers is going to prevent piracy of its games. This latest story of Ubisoft DRM woe comes from Guru3d.

Gurur3d had wanted to do a benchmark test of one of Ubisoft's latest titles, Anno 2070, by installing the game on multiple PCs and switching out graphics cards. Unfortunately, Anno 2070 came with an activation limit of only 3 installs. Guru3d had not thought that would be a problem as they just wanted to see the difference between graphics cards. So they started switching cards. No sooner than they had begun, they hit the activation limit.

So yesterday I started working on a performance review. We know (well at least we figured we knew), that the game key can be used on three systems. That's fair, the first activation is used on my personal game rig. The second we installed on the AMD Radeon graphics test PC and the 3rd on our NVIDIA graphics test PC.

On the AMD Radeon PC we initially test the Radeon HD 7970, then to match the timedemo sequence we install the NVIDIA system, which has a GeForce GTX 580. So far it's all good, we have created a timedemo sequence, defined our image quality settings, took screenshots and the numbers for the first two cards.

For the NVIDIA setup I take out the GTX 580, and insert a GTX 590. When I now startup the game 'BAM', again an activation is required. Once again I fill out the key and now Ubisoft is thanking me with the message that I ran out of activations.

Not only does the Ubisoft DRM monitor the number of installations the game has been used for, but it also monitors changes to your hardware. So if you decide to upgrade your graphics card and nothing else, you just wasted an activation. Needless to say, this didn't make Guru3D very happy. So they called up the Ubisoft marketing department in the Netherlands and were met with indifference.

When contacting Ubisoft marketing here in the Netherlands, their reply goes like this: 'Sorry to disappoint you - the game is indeed restricted to 3 hardware changes and there simply is no way to bypass that. We also do not have 7 copies of the game for you'.

This is not the type of response that gamers would want to get from the people who sold them the game. This response basically reads "Sorry we screwed you over on your game and you can't play it. Feel free to buy another copy in order to keep using it." You know how most people will react to this? They will refuse to do business with that company, and/or they will decide to just download the DRM crack for the game and continue to play it. Neither option helps Ubisoft.

Lucky for Guru3d, they had connections and were able to get in touch with the actual developers of the game and were provided with an unlocked key so they could do their testing. However, this is hardly a solution for the average gamer. Very few will have connections with the developer of the game and very few will be able to get the attention of the larger gaming press. Lucky for us, someone at Ubisoft was paying attention and made a change to the Anno 2070 DRM:

Hi Hilbert,

Just wanted to let you know, that we now remove the graphics hardware from the hash used to identify the PC.That means everyone should now be able to switch the GFX as many times as he/she wants.

Cheers,

So this is what it takes to get thrown a bone by Ubisoft these days -- have the press complain and raise a big stink for all gamers to see. Of course this isn't really a new thing for Ubisoft. It has always been blind to the will of its fans. There is no sense in thinking that Ubisoft has learned anything from this fiasco other than, "Do what we normally do and if anyone complains, ignore them. If that doesn't work, ease up just a hair." This will not fly for much longer. Gamers will learn to avoid Ubisoft products. Many already have. The question is will Ubisoft ever learn its lesson and provide its fans with the products they want?

from the this-is-getting-old dept

Thanksgiving week was not a good week for Ubisoft Shanghai creative director Stanislas Mettra. When asked if a PC version of the game I Am Alive would be coming, he responded that it wouldn't because of piracy.

It's hard because there's so much piracy and so few people are paying for PC games that we have to precisely weigh it up against the cost of making it. Perhaps it will only take 12 guys three months to port the game to PC, it's not a massive cost but it's still a cost. If only 50,000 people buy the game then it's not worth it.

This statement and one about PC gamers "bitching" got the gaming press and PC gamers all riled up. Very soon the news was everywhere that Ubisoft, the company pushing always on DRM and complaining about piracy on the PC at every turn, was at it again. This bad publicity led to Mettra backtracking on his comments.

What I meant is that the pc version did not happen yet [sic]. But we are still working to see the feasibility of it, which is not necessarily simple. I gave some examples to illustrate the problematic [sic], but obviously it is not in my hands and not my part to talk about this.

Although he attempts to avoid the topic of piracy specifically in his retraction, he still leaves the reader with the same message, PC gaming is a losing venture. Is this in the Ubisoft training material or something? Are they trained to believe that the PC is rife with piracy and that it should be treated with the utmost contempt and caution? It wasn't that long ago that other Ubisoft developers were complaining about the same thing.

I would be happy to leave this discussion at that if it weren't for the comments from a few other developers that same week on the very same topic. While Mettra believes the problem lies with piracy and the lack of paying customers on the PC, these other developers came to a very different conclusion. First we have Devolver CFO Fork Parker speaking about the PC version of Serious Sam 3:

Piracy is a problem and there is no denying that but the success of games like Skyrim and our own Serious Sam 3 on PC illustrates that there is clearly a market willing to pay for PC games, It's on the developers and publishers to put something out on the market that's worth paying for in the first place. Those that place the blame on the consumer need to rethink the quality of their products and the frequency in which they shovel out derivative titles each year.

The other side of the equation is the distribution model. In games, we have amazing PC digital download services like Steam, Get Games and Direct2Drive doing the same thing for games that iTunes did for music. Offer the consumer a variety of great digital content at a reasonable price and the majority will happily pay for the games that suit their tastes.

Here is a developer who recognizes that the market for PC games is ripe for the taking. Gamers are willing to buy quality product. If the game fails to turn a profit it is not the fault of the gamer or the pirates, it is the fault of the developer and publisher. If they take advantage of the services that PC gamers use to distribute their games, they will see a return on that investment.

We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. For example, if a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24/7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country three months after the U.S. release and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable.

Most DRM solutions diminish the value of the product by either directly restricting a customer's use or by creating uncertainty.

I know we quote Newell a lot when the topic of game piracy comes up, but his comments are always relevant. He is a man who gets it. He has learned that the battle with piracy cannot be won through the use of DRM, region restrictions or any other restriction that you can throw at the customer. This is something that Ubisoft has continually failed to learn. If you want to succeed in PC gaming, you need to bring the games to where the customers are, make them available and restrict them as little as possible. When you do that, honest customers will support you.

Really Ubisoft, this is getting old. I feel like a parent scolding his child for the 20th time about hitting his sister. You think the child gets it after the first time and that the second time is an honest mistake. But, when the child continues to hit his sister, you need to take drastic disciplinary action. What will it take to get the message through to those in charge at Ubisoft? Gamers want your games and will buy them, but you have to provide the service they want. That is the only way you will succeed.

from the that's-one-way dept

We all know that many game companies are really upset about being locked out of the used games revenue stream. Warner happens to be one of those companies. With the release of Batman: Arkham City, Warner is giving a free code to new game buyers that lets the gamer play as Catwoman during the game. If you buy the game used, you will need to buy a new code to access Catwoman. That is if you buy it used anywhere other than GameStop.

According to a memo sent to Kotaku, Warner and GameStop have partnered up to give free codes to buyers of used copies of Batman. Granted, GameStop is most likely paying for these codes for the customer and is most likely getting them at a discounted rate. This happens to be a great deal for both companies and even some customers. Warner gets the satisfaction of capturing used game revenue with a reduced risk of customers deciding not to buy the redemption code. GameStop gets a leg up on the competition which don't have the same deal. Finally, customers of GameStop don't have to shell out the extra cash to play as Catwoman.

This is an interesting move on Warner's part. GameStop is the poster child for the evils of used games, according to many games industry veterans. However, even the toughest critic of GameStop's policies recognizes the power this one brand has over the game consumer, thus the deal. If GameStop is willing to make such a deal with Warner, would they be willing to do the same with other companies such as EA or Ubisoft?

Of course, there are additional ramifications to consider. How will this affect the relationship with other game stores, both in and outside the US, which don't have the same leveraging power? Will those smaller stores be coerced into deals that are not as sweet for them and their customers? Regardless of the ramifications, it is nice to see a company actually be proactive about capturing used games revenue rather than just complain and punish players. Why can't more companies act this way?

from the clerical-error dept

It should come as no surprise to Techdirt readers that many people within the games industry hate used game sales. One of the methods these companies are implementing to fight these sales is to force buyers of used games to pay extra to gain access to the multiplayer portion. This works by inserting a one time use code in the new copies of games. Once the multiplayer code has been used, only the owner of the console used to activate it can access the multiplayer parts of the game. If that player decides to later sell or give away the game, the new owner would have to buy a new multiplayer code from the publisher, generally $10. So far EA, THQ, Ubisoft and Activision have dabbled in this system for various games.

It should also come as no surprise that such a system has a major weakness, the printing error.

Edge Magazine is reporting Ubisoft's first foray into this new system has hit a road block. XBox 360 versions of Driver: San Fransisco were shipped to North America with a misprinted multiplayer code. Reports indicate the 360 is expecting a 25-character code, but the insert only contains a 19-character code. This results in an invalid code error when trying to redeem it. In response to this unforeseen (at least to Ubisoft) incident, Ubisoft is making the multiplayer portions of Driverfree for all players worldwide, at least for 360 owners. There is no word on if this free multiplayer will be available for PS3 or PC owners.

In the end, it makes you wonder how, after 30+ years of printing registration codes inside PC games, such a system could fail so badly when translated to console games.

It's just, simply, PC piracy is at the most incredible rates. This game cost a huge amount of money to develop, and it has to be, quite rightly - quite morally correctly - protected.

If there was very little trouble with piracy then we wouldn't need it.

Gabe shoots back:

We're a broken record on this. This belief that you increase your monetization by making your game worth less through aggressive digital rights management is totally backwards . It's a service issue, not a technology issue. Piracy is just not an issue for us.

Martin responds:

DRM is not a decision taken by us as a developer at all. It's a purely a publisher decision. The publisher has every right to protect their investment.

It's difficult to get away from the fact that as a developer, as somebody who puts their blood, sweat and tears into this thing... And from the publisher's point of view, which invests tens and tens and tens of millions into a product - by the time you've got marketing, a hundred million - that piracy on the PC is utterly unbelievable.

Gabe shares a story of how Valve protected their investment, in Russia no less:

When people decide where to buy their games they look and they say, 'Jesus, the pirates provide a better service for us.'

The best way to fight piracy is to create a service that people need. I think (publishers with strict DRM) will sell less of their products and create more problems.

Ok, so it wasn't a long debate, but I think the point is clear. Ubisoft and many other developers and publishers are under the impression that those who pirate games are doing so just to get free games. Yet, Valve has learned that piracy is a symptom of a greater problem: unmet customer needs. It learned that Russians pirated games to get a better quality localization than what the publishers provided. It didn't respond by upping the DRM. It responded by providing high quality localization.

So rather than fight your fans and treat them like criminals, why not embrace them and provide them with the product they want? It's amazing that anyone needs a debate to figure that out.

from the if-you-really-want-to-stick-it-to-the-pirates,-just-stop-making-games dept

As I'm sure many of you tuned into the gamosystem (Now officially a word! Use it for your next startup!) are aware, Ubisoft has a long tradition of irritating the hell out of the very people it wishes to have purchase its games. A short while ago, Ubisoft announced the latest Driver sequel would require players to be handcuffed to a solid internet connection in order to fully utilize its "Always On" DRM.

Of course, an uproar took place and Ubisoft is now attempting to calm its potential customers, as Rock Paper Shotgun reports, by walking back its "always on" DRM, as evidenced by this official statement:

We've heard your feedback regarding the permanent internet connection requirement for Driver and have made the decision to no longer include it. So this means that Driver PC gamers will only need to sign in at game launch but can subsequently choose to play the game offline.

"And this improves things how?" RPS' John Walker asks:

[W]hat Driver's DRM has been reduced to is almost pointlessly different. Before if your internet connection went down while you played, the game would stop, and it wasn't possible to play anywhere without an internet connection at all. Now, er, if your internet connection is down you still can't play, and you still can't play anywhere without an internet connection.

While this concession makes it slightly less annoying to play Ubisoft's game, the fact remains that this minor compromise doesn't alter the general "treat everyone like thieves" principle behind it. If you really want to prevent piracy, rather than please your customers, why not just take your protective measures to the logical conclusion?

Always On is by far and away the most egregiously stupid and unfair DRM to have ever been included with a game... It's something Ubisoft have boasted, without providing any proof whatsoever, has reduced piracy. While the claim without proof is meaningless, it also ignores the rather larger issue that so would locking the only copy of the game in a concrete block buried beneath the sea reduce piracy. It would also make it even more inconvenient for a paying customer.

Ubisoft may be slowly learning that the public isn't going to put up with Always On, but it seems deaf to the facts that its DRM does nothing to slow down piracy and everything to annoy its customers. Walker closes with this plea, which could be directed at any purveyor of DRM-laced goods:

But Ubisoft - if you're genuinely listening to the reaction against your DRM, then please actually hear what's being said. With DRM that requires an internet connection to launch, every time, you are once again mindlessly and needlessly punishing your legitimate customers in a way that will not affect those with pirated copies. You will, once again, be selling a product with a serious and significant defect, that those who download it for free will not be encountering. There's no logic or rationale that makes that okay. By requiring an internet connection for launch, on every launch, you punish anyone whose internet isn't working, who wants to play away from home (on a train, on a plane, on a holiday in Cornwall, at their grandparents' house, in their barracks...), or who cannot afford a broadband internet connection. It is cruel. It is stupid. It doesn't work on any level. If you are listening, really listening, then stop this. Stop treating customers like criminals, and start showing respect to those who pay you significant amounts of money for your products.

Once again, if your product can't outperform the pirated version, your battle against piracy will always be uphill.

As is par for Ubisoft's effed-up course, this DRM will also cripple the apparently unsociable "single player" part of the game. This crippling will also extend to any player, single or not, whose internet connection fails them for whatever reason:

Even if the system weren't a gross mistreatment of customers, unforgivably stupid and spiteful, it's a DRM designed for a universe other than this one. My home internet, with the extremely reliable Be, drops frequently. A noise on our BT line causes problems, along with normal service outages, sudden blips, and all the times I trip over the phone wire and pull it out of the wall. Let alone if I want to do something crazy like, I don't know, play a game outside of my house.

"In each new copy of a Uplay Passport-enhanced game will be a one-time use registration code that, when redeemed, provides access to Uplay Passport content and features," the company said in an emailed statement. "The code can be found on the insert card inside the game box. Gamers can identify Uplay Passport-enhanced games by looking for the logo on the back of the box."

Given that this code can only be redeemed once, consumers who purchase a used game laced with Uplay Passport restrictions will be forced to shell out an extra $9.99 to unlock online content and features. This means that a used game which normally costs $5 less than the new packaged version will essentially cost $5 more than the new unopened copy.

Well, that is certainly a fine way to stick it to the second-hand market. At this point you might as well buy it new, or better yet, not buy it all. And you have to love the PR team's misinterpretation of "enhanced," which is rarely linked to something that is also described as "mandatory."

But it's not all bad news, as RPS points out. Ubisoft is going the extra mile to make sure that PC gamers will be screwed just as quickly as their console counterparts:

Astonishingly, Eurogamer reports, when one customer complained on Twitter about the PC DRM, Ubisoft replied saying, "Bear in mind though that the PC version of DRVSF is released simultaneously to consoles."

Brilliant. I suppose the bright side is that cracked versions for consoles and PCs should appear within moments of each other. But Ubisoft isn't done ruining the "game experience" yet:

Oh, this one just keeps getting better. As reader Anarki points out, Ubisoft have now tweeted confirming the driving game will not support steering wheels!

The question at this point is no longer "When will Ubisoft learn?" but rather "How much does Ubisoft despise its customers?" And it looks as if the answer to the second question is swiftly approaching "infinitely."